I understand, me being from America. I hate ISIS, how can they expect to take an American and decapitate them. Its like Obama said, if you choose to hurt the U.S there will be no safe haven for you. I am all for that, cause if that was my brother or family member I would be out there right now looking for any ISIS member ready to torture and kill them in the most slowest and painful way possible. And I really wouldnt care if i lived or died.

Force our beliefs on others who are weak are you on crack???

Did you sleep through 9/11 or something or do you subscribe to the theory that it was made up???

If you truly believe any nation would sit back and allow its citizens to be beheaded you need to take a long hard look at yourself and a long hard look at the goals of the other side.

I don't think you understand that sending the troops in at this point has the very real potential to make the situation worse, not better. It'll probably end up happening at some point, but at present we aren't doing enough to supply the Kurds and other moderate groups facing IS with arms. If that fails, then the only option left is a ground offensive. But this will be longer and more drawn out than Afghanistan AND Iraq. Potentially combined. The Islamic State is complicated in that its influence extends across two sovereign territories, one of which we're also trying to rid of its leader anyway. They're also much better funded than any other previous group in the region, and are thus better armed. It's in the interests of both the groups fighting IS and Western countries to arm groups like the Peshmerga in order to maintain the fight on the ground as long as possible without being involved directly. If that fails, fine. We'd need to send NATO in. But this time, ensure we get the support of states in the region, such as the Saudis and the UAE. Even Iran, it's in their direct interests to see IS fall.

Kal_El I'm not American, I'm English. which is probably why I'm thinking long term :p

Look, the simple reality is this.

It is abhorrent that people have been beheaded by ISIS. They are a vile group. They do need to be dealt with. But not by America, not by England, not by any other country that isn't actually in the Middle East, at this point.

Remember the last time we went to Iraq? Yeah, that ended fucking splendidly, didn't it? We shouldn't have gone then and going back now shows we learned nothing.

I have nothing but sympathy for the families of those who have died at the hands of ISIS, however... from what I know, at least a few of those people were advised against travel, particularly to Syria. They went anyway, knowing that they were putting themselves in dangerous situations. The fact that people who knowingly put themselves into dangerous situations, put themselves into those situations, is not a reason to go to war and cause an even larger loss of life, in my book. 

To contain ISIS, the rest of the middle east, the countries that surround Iraq and Syria, if they do not want ISIS on their doorsteps, need to come together and take action. I'm pretty sure that won't happen because it'll be the Saudi's funding ISIS, but that's what needs to happen if they want to stop this. The west getting involved at this point is only going to act as a recruitment tool for ISIS. Unless it can be proven that there is a serious threat to the UK - as in, a threat on our home soil, not a threat to people who have chosen to put themselves in dangerous situations - I don't support our involvement. 

The one thing I do support, however, is the ceasing of all trade with Saudi Arabia, because every time a group of Islamic fanatics pop up and start acting the twats, there's usually links back to Saudi Arabia. That does need to be stopped. 

Maria, the invasion of Iraq is of course what has destabilised the region to allow the development of this situation. The one real benefit the region had from authoritarian dictators (such as Saddam and Assad) was that they kept the region regulated and under control. Take them out, destroy their political structures, and you're left with a vacuum, and the capacity of any fledgling Iraqi government to deal with insurgent groups is minimal. IS originated in Iraq as a consolidation of numerous Sunni insurgent groups during the US/British occupation, so they're basically the groups the US/British forces were fighting back then anyway.

What it shows to me is that when Western forces left, they left it high and dry. The capacity of both the Iraqi government and its armed forces was always limited (and, clearly, remains so). It demonstrates breathtaking naivety on the part of the US and Britain to think they could leave and that they could leave the Iraqis to their own devices and they'd be able to control the jihadist problem. They can barely control themselves. If there was another Western ground intervention in Iraq and Syria, it would simply demonstrate that the West's plan for Iraq was a spectacular failure. Which to be honest, is pretty evident anyway.

Most Western leaders recognise that they need to keep this conflict at arm's length, and that means supplying local groups such as the Kurds, as I've said. If any NATO power is going to send troops in it's going to be Turkey, given IS are about to take a town you can see from their own border. But I doubt they're going to do that unless they get an undertaking from other NATO powers (in particular the US) as to their own commitments.

I love the lets do nothing attitude, it isn't our problem. How do we stop them attacking our shores?

Remember Lee Rigby??

Lets look at what happens in the past with the "Do nothing attitude" World War 2 springs to mind.

Fundementally we need to get Arab nations to engage in a ground offensive with them, however history shows that sooner or later Western Troops will have to go on the ground in some form or other. Even now do you really believe there are no Western Soldiers out there on the ground engaged in combat operations??

This is all that I know from my father, brother, uncle and cousins....We are about to head to war...that is all.

Yes, I remember Lee Rigby. But I don't recall ISIS killing Lee Rigby. Manu, you're basically sounding like a Britain First post, coming out with shit like this, and I'm sure Lee Rigby's family asked that far right nutcases stopped using their sons name and image to further and justify their ridiculous beliefs.

Now, I'll try to break this down again. 

If we, right now, go into Iraq or Syria on the ground, we will lose large amounts of troops, we will gain little ground and we will be ISIS' most effective recruitment agency. 

If we, right now, start to tackle the problem of Saudi Arabia funding fuckbags like this, with sanctions, with the ending of weapon/military sales to them, then maybe we'll start to see ISIS falter somewhat. But at the moment, while ISIS are pretty much contained to Iraq and to Syria, it is down to the surrounding countries - Turkey, Iran, etc, to get their shit together and tackle this.

Whether or not Westerners are over there is no reason to get involved or not get involved. If UK Citizens are out there and it can be proved they are out there with ISIS, then sure, arrest them as soon as they attempt to re-enter the UK. But that isn't justification for a boots on the ground offensive at the moment.

This isn't a do nothing attitude. This is an attitude that recognizes that far more damage can yet be done by rushing in. ISIS WANT the UK and the USA to put troops on the ground in Iraq/Syria. Have you at any point stopped to consider why, and why it isn't in our interests to do exactly what it is they want us to do?

I love the lets do nothing attitude, it isn't our problem. How do we stop them attacking our shores?

Remember Lee Rigby??

Lets look at what happens in the past with the "Do nothing attitude" World War 2 springs to mind.

It isn't a 'let's do nothing' attitude. It's a 'let's not blindly rush into yet another Middle Eastern war that is guaranteed to make the situation even worse than it already is' attitude. From recollection, the West aren't currently doing 'nothing'. Or at least, I didn't think air strikes were 'nothing'.

Let's be honest here, World War II is an absolutely terrible analogy. There is a profound difference between a strong conventional army such s that of the Germans, and that of a largely dispersed guerrilla movement. The two pose completely different challenges. Namely, the Germans were in the immediate vicinity of both the UK and France, and posed an immediate threat. They posed a different threat too, namely the actual occupation of Britain. Are IS going to capture Britain, or indeed any other Western country? Of course they fucking aren't.

The killing of Lee Rigby was terrible, yes. But the people who carried out that killing are now in prison and will never leave prison. That's the thing about a justice system, you see. It prevents the need for extreme reactions such as going to war in a region because of a murder that was totally unconnected to that region.

This is the thing: we can't keep trying to resolve every issue in the Middle East. Because all that happens is we end up making it even worse. The West created the conditions for the birth of IS, and going in now will suit them down to the ground.

The simple fact is whatever is done we have to be careful.  The West armed Saddam in the arms war between Iraq and Iran and we all know how that worked out and same with Afghanistan against Russia and how some feel with Israel and Palestine.

The simple fact is people will die whether is ours or another countries, structure will be damaged and innocents will always be victims.

A list of things have to be done to truly cut off the problem but is difficult.

1. As has been said, funding and Ammunitions have to be cut off.
2. The people supplying the Ammunition, Weaponary and funding removed.
3. Sanctions/seizure of trade with nations who fund terrorism.   Internet sites, groups raising for these groups and encouraging the hated banned worldwide and closed quicker by ISP's.   Assets frozen worldwide of these groups and splinter groups too.
4. Re-Education of those brain washed about an ideology.  You will always get radicals, but if people can know both sides have more chance to heal, especially if from someones own people. 
5. Military, political, business support from surrounding nations.
6. Make a plan before acting as guerrilla warfare where don't know your enemy is almost impossible to win as is a war of attrition.
7. The world has to act as one, but where x sells arms to y this is rare especially with UN/NATO veto powers.

The big problem with Iraq was some of the same people who had been in power from Saddam's era, were voted back into power along with moderate members.   Tribes and paramilitaries still existed, stockpiles of weapons were left to create new groups, and hatred was created by many due to innocents who died, were maimed and those who will always support whether due to religion, politics, etc. 

Media have been 1 sided for both sides at stages during these conflicts inflaming tensions yet go unpunished in many cases.  The army also failed to train soldiers, police due to how easy it was to infiltrate both as in some case Generals/Colonels and Police were ignored in their warnings as was rushed at the end to puil out due to pressure and never broke the battle hardened groups as with afghanistan who were happy to travel to fight, or move from afghanistan to iraq to fight and vice versa.

The number of british citizens joining such groups as well as world wide terrorist training camps mean will always be breeding grounds but difficult without shutting borders to do much.

The general truth is when ISIS is broken, will be another group, then another group unfortunately.  And whether we hit, the middle east nations, NATO or NON-Nato nations will have to be by a combo of Land, air and sea to break resources, troop movement and restore order. The problem is the minute we leave if the right powers aren't in place, a faction will slide back in whether short term or long term.

If you leave a problem long enough yes it can grow support outside it's original region as much as it faces opposition and yes the carnage will continue but without leadership and co-ordination which can unite multiple factions as one to complete an objective is going to be a limit to what it achieves.  The truth is the answer is never simple, and will always have internal political, media and social pressures whichever decision is made on how to combat such groups and will always come with a pile of propaganda from both sides.